On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:56:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > >>Debian have good guidelines for programs. They are partially applicable > >>for documentaion and for programs they work very good. Anyway it is > >>a subject for another discussion.
Raul Miller wrote: > > We are discussing what we want to do with those guidelines. On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:46:09AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > I'm not ready to say something new on GFDL. If Debian majority will > decide it doesn't satisfy SC and DFSG, it will go to non-free. If Debian > majority will decide to drop non-free, GFDL documentation will be droped > together with it. My opinion is that DFSG and SC are not clear enough on > this question and have to be changed before *any* decision is done. Well, except I'm in the process of writing a proposal for the consideration of that majority, so I need to talk about such issues even if you're not ready to. > > We're not talking about DFPG (Debian Free Program Guidelines). We are > > talking about DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). And I think we > > should be talking about software, rather than programs, for much the > > same reasons that we can use code as data and data as code. > You probably know, there is no stable definition of this word. Which word? "Free" (that's what the DFSG is for), "Program" (yes, I agree), "Software" (I don't see any relevant instabilities). >From your next sentence, I'll assume "Software". > I've checked several dictionaries and find out that some of them define > software as program+data, some of them use program+data+docs, some of > them insist on software == program. That's why I prefer not to use this > word in this discussion. I think best thing with new SC will be to avoid > it, or to define it clearly. Software is all of what we distribute. Otherwise, there would be no point to our free software guidelines. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
